Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo
Appeal from the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. DC-15-43362, Honorable Trent D. Farrell,
QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ.
C. PARKER JUSTICE.
Central Texas Cattlemen's Association (CTCA), appeals the
trial court's July 17, 2018 order denying the release of
a $132, 400 supersedeas bond posted by appellees, Kenneth L.
Haedge, Dale C. Tippit, Denver Tippit, Case S. Jones, and
Clinton H. Shed (collectively, "the Haedge group"),
to CTCA. We reverse the trial court's order and
render the order that the trial court should have entered.
and Procedural Background
detailed presentation of the factual and procedural history
underlying the present dispute may be found in our October
11, 2016 opinion. See Haedge v. Cent. Tex.
Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 07-15-00368-CV, 2016
Tex.App. LEXIS 11092, at *1-12 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Oct. 11,
2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
the Haedge group held shares in CTCA and were allowed to
graze cattle in proportion to its shares on Fort Hood
property under a lease between the United States Army and
CTCA. A dispute arose when it was alleged that the Haedge
group had taken actions on the leasehold that violated the
terms of the lease and jeopardized CTCA and its member's
right to continue to graze cattle on the Fort Hood property.
After the Haedge group was noticed, a meeting was held at
which CTCA, through its Board of Directors, voted to cancel
the Haedge group's shares in CTCA. Consequently, the
Haedge group brought suit against CTCA alleging fraud,
conversion, and breach of contract. The trial court granted
CTCA summary judgment as to all issues other than whether the
Haedge group was afforded due process in the manner through
which their shares were cancelled. After a bench trial on the
issue of due process, the trial court entered judgment that
the Haedge group take nothing by the suit.
Haedge group appealed the trial court's judgment and
filed a motion to suspend enforcement of the trial
court's judgment during the pendency of the appeal. After
holding a hearing on the motion to suspend, the trial court
entered an order that the Haedge group could suspend
enforcement of the judgment by posting a $2, 500 supersedeas
bond. In response to the trial court's bond order, CTCA
filed a motion with this Court challenging the trial
court's decision to allow a bond to suspend enforcement
of a take-nothing judgment and, alternatively, challenging
the amount of the bond set by the trial court. This Court
determined that it was appropriate for the trial court to
allow the Haedge group to supersede the take-nothing
judgment. Haedge v. Cent. Tex. Cattlemen's
Ass'n, No. 07-15-00368-CV, 2016 Tex.App. LEXIS 2311,
at *6-8 (Tex. App.-Amarillo Mar. 3, 2016, order) (per
curiam). However, we also determined that, to adequately
protect CTCA, it was necessary to increase the amount of the
supersedeas bond to $132, 400. Id. at *8-9. We based
this amount on the evidence presented by the parties at the
hearing before the trial court that it would cost the Haedge
group approximately $66, 200 per year to lease alternative
land upon which to graze their cattle. Id. We
expressly stated that we expected the appeal to be resolved
within two years but that, if the appeal were to fail to
reach resolution within this timeframe, the trial court
retained continuing jurisdiction to modify the amount of
security required to suspend enforcement of the judgment.
Id. at *9 n.4. The Haedge group and their surety,
Insurors Indemnity Company, timely posted a supersedeas bond
in the amount of $132, 400.
this Court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing
judgment. See Haedge, 2016 Tex.App. LEXIS 11092, at
*29. The Texas Supreme Court denied the Haedge group's
petition for discretionary review. See Haedge v. Cent.
Tex. Cattlemen's Ass'n, No. 16-0956, 2017 Tex.
LEXIS 873 (Tex. Sept. 22, 2017). We issued mandate on
December 5, 2017, ordering that CTCA,
recover of and from the supersedeas bond filed by [the Haedge
group], and their surety, Insurors Indemnity Company, all
cattle grazing fees and costs, if any, accrued during the
pendency of the appeal not to exceed the amount of the
supersedeas bond, as determined by the court below and
consistent with this Court's order on supersedeas dated
March 3, 2016 . . . .
this Court's issuance of mandate, the parties filed
competing motions for release of the supersedeas bond. The
trial court held a hearing on the motions on February 7,
2018. At this hearing, the Haedge group argued, for the first
time, that CTCA was only entitled to any unpaid shareholder
assessments that had been made against the Haedge group
during the pendency of the appeal. After issuing an order
that was inadvertently not final, the trial court entered a
final order on July 17, 2018, that found Clinton Shed to be
liable to CTCA in the amount of $7, 000 in unpaid assessments
and ordered that Shed pay this amount or authorizing CTCA to
obtain this recovery from the supersedeas bond. Because CTCA
immediately perfected the present appeal to challenge the
trial court's order, the trial court ordered that
execution on its order be suspended pending resolution of
this matter by this Court.
appeal, CTCA presents two issues. Its first issue contends
that the trial court erred in failing to enforce this
Court's December 5, 2017 mandate. Its second issue
contends that the trial court reached the wrong conclusion
regarding the damages suffered by CTCA because the trial
court improperly ignored CTCA's evidence of damages.
judgment debtor is entitled to supersede and defer payment of
a judgment while pursuing an appeal. Miga v. Jensen,
299 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex. 2009). We are authorized by Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.4 to engage in a limited
review of issues relating to the setting of a supersedeas
bond. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4. After the trial
court in the present case set the bond to suspend enforcement
of its judgment at $2, 500, this Court reversed the trial